CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. CV-23-2356
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Ackerler

Claimant John Ackerler appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his request for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Ackerler, who suffered a work-related back injury in 2012 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to permanent total disability due to financial hardship. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that Ackerler failed to demonstrate extreme hardship, citing insufficient evidence regarding household income and questionable expenses. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that Ackerler did not show financial hardship beyond the ordinary.

Extreme HardshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityReclassificationFinancial HardshipHousehold IncomeMonthly ExpensesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. 535032
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Charlene Davis

Charlene Davis, a licensed practical nurse, sustained two work-related injuries in 2010, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 2013 and 425 weeks of indemnity benefits. Prior to benefits exhaustion in 2020, she sought reclassification to permanent total disability based on extreme hardship under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). A Workers' Compensation Law Judge granted her request, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling she failed to show extreme financial hardship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing with the interpretation of 'extreme hardship' as financial hardship 'beyond the ordinary and existing in a very high degree' and finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence regarding claimant's income, assets, and expenses.

Extreme HardshipPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsReclassificationStatutory InterpretationFinancial HardshipSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiffs Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC and QED LLC filed a putative class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs, who hold mortgage-backed securities, claimed that Countrywide's modifications to mortgage loans, stemming from a settlement with state Attorneys General, obligate Countrywide to repurchase these loans as per the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Countrywide removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that the claims involved substantial federal questions under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The Court, under Judge Richard J. Holwell, concluded that neither CAFA's securities-related exception nor TILA provided the necessary grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness ActTruth-in-Lending ActMortgage-Backed SecuritiesPooling and Servicing AgreementsFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsContract InterpretationPredatory Lending
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02633 [238 AD3d 1242]
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

Matter of Epstein v. Waldbaums

Claimant Linda Epstein, a former meat wrapper, sustained a work-related injury in 2011, leading to a permanent partial disability and a 450-week benefit award. Nearing benefit exhaustion, she requested an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3), which was initially denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, granting her request based on her age, limited education, health issues, and dire financial circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of extreme financial hardship, warranting reclassification to permanent total or total industrial disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityExtreme HardshipWage-Earning CapacityReclassificationPermanent Total DisabilityTotal Industrial DisabilityFinancial HardshipSocial Security DisabilityPension Benefits
References
10
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01843 [236 AD3d 1254]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Mystkowski v. Monpat Constr. Inc.

The claimant, Bogdan Mystkowski, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request for an extreme hardship redetermination. Mystkowski, who suffered a back injury in 2011 and was found to have a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to a permanent total disability due to alleged financial hardship. The Board, affirming a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, found that Mystkowski's claimed expenses, including a luxury vehicle and high food costs attributed to an inability to cook, did not meet the threshold of 'unusual or unexpected expenses' for extreme hardship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence, noting that demonstrating expenses exceed income does not automatically mandate an extreme hardship finding.

Extreme HardshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityReclassificationFinancial HardshipIndemnity BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAdministrative Appeal
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05006
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Brown v. Plans Plus Ltd.

Claimant Janice Brown was injured in a work-related accident in 2010, resulting in a permanent partial disability and 80% loss of wage earning capacity. She was entitled to 425 weeks of indemnity benefits. Prior to their exhaustion, she sought an extreme hardship redetermination to be reclassified to permanent total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board denied. The Board interpreted 'extreme hardship' as requiring financial hardship beyond the ordinary, considering claimant's assets, income, and expenses. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation and application of the extreme hardship standard rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting claimant's home equity loan and luxury vehicle lease.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityExtreme Hardship RedeterminationWage Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsReclassificationPermanent Total DisabilityFinancial HardshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 581 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational